Self Organizing Field

The concept of the self-organizing field occupies a pivotal position in depth psychology’s dialogue with complexity science, systems theory, and archetypal theory. Its appearance in the corpus spans a wide arc: from Conforti’s explicitly Jungian argument that archetypes function as self-organizing fields whose influence is not bounded by space or time, through Thompson’s rigorous enactive biology where collective self-organization produces emergent macrostructures without any internal homunculus directing them, to Siegel’s interpersonal neurobiology where self-organizing emergent properties of complex systems are proposed as the very substrate of mental health and its failures. The Ulanov corpus engages the concept obliquely through chaos theory’s strange attractors and the mathematics of self-organizing chaos. What unites these divergent voices is a shared resistance to mechanistic reductionism: the self-organizing field is invoked precisely because no single locus — no gene, no agent, no ego — is sufficient to explain the ordered patterns that emerge in nature, psyche, and relationship. The central tension concerns ontological status: for Conforti, the archetypal field is a real, transpersonal influence; for Thompson and Siegel, self-organization is a formal property of complex dynamical systems. Whether this distinction is bridgeable — whether depth psychology’s archetypal field theory can be grounded in complexity science without being dissolved by it — remains the defining question the corpus leaves open.

In the library 14 passages

The concept of self-organizing and influencing fields is finding increasing support and validation in diverse disciplines. The field theory arises from a concern and search for an understanding of archetypal processes and those forces responsible for the creation of life, the emergence of form, and the evolution of complexity

Conforti advances the self-organizing field as the central theoretical framework for understanding archetypal processes, explicitly linking Jungian field theory to the new sciences of complexity and emergence.

Conforti, Michael, Field, Form, and Fate: Patterns in Mind, Nature, and Psyche, 1999thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Such spontaneous pattern formation is exactly what we mean by self-organization: the system organizes itself, but there is no ‘self,’ no agent inside the system doing the organizing.

Thompson, via Kelso, articulates the core paradox of the self-organizing field: emergent order arises without any central directing agent, challenging both mechanistic and homuncular explanations of pattern formation.

Thompson, Evan, Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind, 2007thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Does the self-organizing emergent property that derives from complexity theory overlap with ‘self-regulation,’ a primary focus in the field of psychopathology? If so, this may be a conceptual bridge linking two independent fields.

Siegel proposes that the self-organizing emergent property of complex systems is functionally equivalent to self-regulation, reframing psychopathology as an impairment of self-organization rather than of discrete regulatory mechanisms.

Siegel, Daniel J., The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are, 2020thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The archetype, which functions as an informational, rational, and meaning carrying structure, works its influence by creating a field of influence and whose effect is not limited by space and time parameters.

Conforti characterizes the archetypal field as a non-local self-organizing influence analogous to gravitational or electromagnetic fields in physics, responsible for patterning both psychic and material events.

Conforti, Michael, Field, Form, and Fate: Patterns in Mind, Nature, and Psyche, 1999supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

certain aspects of social interactions can be addressed in the language of self-organizing, dynamical processes. In brief, what matters for the organization of rhythmic interpersonal coordination is a coupling between two oscillatory components

Siegel extends the self-organizing field concept into the interpersonal domain, arguing that social interaction itself constitutes a self-organizing dynamical process governed by coupling between oscillatory systems.

Siegel, Daniel J., The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are, 2020supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the psyche tunes into and possibly even creates informational, archetypal fields which serve as the orientational backdrop out of which individual experience evolves.

Conforti proposes that the psyche actively participates in archetypal self-organizing fields, aligning individual experience with an underlying unity of form that precedes and shapes phenomenal events.

Conforti, Michael, Field, Form, and Fate: Patterns in Mind, Nature, and Psyche, 1999supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Self-Organizing Chaos. All of this is science’s attempt to come up with a precise and specifiable theory to describe how chaos occurs.

Ulanov situates self-organizing chaos within the mathematics of nonlinear dynamics, treating it as the scientific framework through which depth psychology can account for the emergence of order from apparent disorder.

Ulanov, Ann Belford, The Feminine in Jungian Psychology and in Christian Theology, 1971supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

both patient and therapist bring to this encounter their entire life histories with their attendant archetypal constellations and fields. As the therapeutic field draws both patient and therapist into a new edition of the repetition

Conforti applies self-organizing field theory to clinical practice, arguing that the therapeutic encounter is itself shaped by an underlying archetypal field that organizes transference, countertransference, and repetition.

Conforti, Michael, Field, Form, and Fate: Patterns in Mind, Nature, and Psyche, 1999supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the self-organizing intentionality of language, including gesture, remains intact. This can only mean, as we have tried to make clear, that the movement on which language depends, that is, expressive movement, is different from the movement organized primarily by body schemas.

Gallagher applies the concept of self-organizing intentionality to distinguish expressive from instrumental movement, showing that different motor capacities draw on distinct self-organizing systems within the body.

Gallagher, Shaun, How the Body Shapes the Mind, 2005supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

complex systems have an innate self-organizing capacity. Complexity theory comes from a branch of mathematics, and in the true spirit of consilience, it has been applied to many different fields of study

Winhall draws on complexity theory’s concept of innate self-organizing capacity to frame therapeutic integration as the restoration of a systems-level property disrupted by trauma and dysregulation.

Winhall, Jan, Treating Trauma and Addiction with the Felt Sense Polyvagal Modelsupporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

The expression ‘field of consciousness’ has but recently come into vogue in the psychology books. Until quite lately the unit of mental life which figured most was the single ‘idea’ supposed to be a definitely outlined thing.

James offers an early proto-field-theoretic account of consciousness, treating the mental field as an undulatory totality rather than a collection of discrete units — an anticipation of later self-organizing field models.

James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience Amazon, 1902aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Related terms